| XBK Chat (unofficial archive) A meeting place for past members of Brahma Kumaris
FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups
Profile You have no new messages Log out
The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition Goto page Previous 1, 2
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
This miscomprehension causes the reviewer to state (on page 3 of the review) “Lekhraj himself changed his name into Prajapita Brahma (the father of humanity) and later on to Brahma Brahma, ‘Father Brahma”. Again, this is incorrect. It is the disembodied being Shiva who directed Lekhraj to make these name changes. Even if Walliss and the reviewer Paul van der Velde feel that Lekhraj was deluded or schizophrenic, and that there was / is no other being involved, one has to understand that this was Lekhraj’s belief, and it is also the belief of the BK following. Let’s be fair. Lekhraj, in doing practically everything he did, felt that he was following the guidance of Shiva - not his own directions.
Atma, on re-reading the review I noticed that this point is addressed to some extent. Here is the quote from the review which you mention above, together with the next sentence:
Quote:
Lekhraj himself changed his name into Prajipita Brahma (the father of humanity) and later on into Brahma Baba, ‘Father Brahma’. He himself claimed these changes of his name to be inspired by divine intervention.
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:37 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava, Yes, its true that the next sentence reads like that. However, it still is not clear enough and - by using the words "claimed" and "divine intervention" - is actually misleading. In place of that subtle innuendo, it would have been better if the writer were more direct (and accurate) by stating that Lekhraj said / believed that he changed his name on the directions of Shiva, who periodically took possession of his body to give discourses.
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:14 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
Atma wrote:
However, the review provides a wealth of factual information. Some of that information is very interesting and significant, particularly as relates to the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement. I learnt things that I did not know before. More about that later.... I have written enough for now. In another post, I will comment on the significant information (given in the review) about the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement; things that should be known and considered by XBKs and others.
Atma, are you done here or do you have any more?
Uddhava, Here is an extract from the review (of Walliss' book) by by Paul van der Velde of Nijmegen University, The Netherlands. This pertains to Lekhraj's "worldly" background. It shows the way his background influenced and dovetailed with emergence of the BK organization's values and belief structure. I have added the bold emphasis. Also, I believe that Lekhraj's family name was actually Kripalani, not Kripani as stated in this extract:
Quote:
The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dad Lekhraj... He was born at Sindh in 1876 as a member of the Kripani family, the members of which usually were devotees of the Vallabhasampradaya. Lekhraj was a man of considerable education. He worked as a wheat trader and later on his business concerned diamonds. Due to these undertakings he became aware of the particular sufferings of women in his society. On the other hand, as Walliss says (p. 33), he also came into contact with royalty, above all the noble families of the Raj, mainly due to his activities as a diamond trader. He is even said to have known the British Viceroy and the king of Nepal. Being a Vallabhite he originally worshiped Narayan, a form of Vishnu. He disapproved, however, Lakshmi’s low position compared to that of her husband Vishnu. Lekhraj was a devout Hindu, he was a vegetarian, and frequently went on pilgrimage tours. He became sensitive to the aforementioned position of women in traditional Indian society and one aspect in this matter Walliss does not mention: in imitation of Krishna having liaisons with the for the most part married or at least engaged gopis (i.e. cowherd girls), the main gurus of the Vallabhasampradaya, the Maharajas, had adulterous affairs with the wives of their devotees. This led to discrimination and misuse of women within the Vallabhite community and it even gave rise to the notorious Maharaja Libel case that came to trial in Bombay in the late 19th century. These traditions within the Vallabhasampradaya may as well have contributed to Lekhraj’s eye for the role of women and his attempts to improve their status.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
Uddhava, it would have been better if the writer were more direct (and accurate) by stating that Lekhraj said / believed that he changed his name on the directions of Shiva, who periodically took possession of his body to give discourses.
Yes I agree this is the signature / # 1 BK belief. I'm not sure how much channelling there is in Indian culture and religion - I can't say I've heard of it in mainstream Indian religion. On the other hand, it's probably a universal thing so I don't see why it shouldn't be found tucked away somewhere in India. It is certainly found in neighbouring Tibet, and there is animism / shamanism in the tribal areas of India. Madame Blavatsky was touring India in the 1880's so I don't know what the Indians made of her.
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
I'm not sure how much channelling there is in Indian culture and religion - I can't say I've heard of it in mainstream Indian religion. On the other hand, it's probably a universal thing so I don't see why it shouldn't be found tucked away somewhere in India.
Uddhava, I can see that you haven't read nearly as many murlis as I have ...and I say that without any ego at all. In many murlis, Shiv Baba referred to a traditional practice that existed (still exists?) for centuries in India. He said that Brahmin priests would invoke the spirits of departed souls to come into their bodies and speak to their relatives who remained alive on earth. Apparently, this form of communication gave solace and and closure to the family members who experienced it. Today, this would be called "channeling", "mediumship" or a "seance". Same difference
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
Uddhava, I can see that you haven't read nearly as many murlis as I have ...and I say that without any ego at all.
Agreed, O ego-less One
Quote:
In many murlis, Shiv Baba referred to a traditional practice that existed (still exists?) for centuries in India. He said that Brahmin priests would invoke the spirits of departed souls to come into their bodies and speak to their relatives who remained alive on earth. Apparently, this form of communication gave solace and and closure to the family members who experienced it. Today, this would be called "channeling", "mediumship" or a "seance". Same difference
I would guess that this practice stilll exists - I mean why wouldn't it? Anyway, a body being borrowed by a departed relative is one thing, but by God who speaks and reveals the secrets of the world is something else. I wonder if there is any precedent for this in Indian religion, or any religion for that matter, (apart from the New Age scene which somehow doesn't count in my book). I am just wondering whether this is extraordinary or not - on the one hand it is different to most / all other ideas of divine revelation, but on the other hand it is just another variation on the old theme of revelation / incarnation.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
I am just returning to this thread because I am presently reading a book about avatars...
Atma wrote:
Let me quote from the second page of the review, under the heading “2 The Brahma Kumaris”.
Quote:
The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dada Lekhraj, who is considered by members to be ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’
The words in single quotation marks are apparently taken by the reviewer from page 33 of Walliss’ book. This is a major miscomprehension of the reality; in common parlance - a howler. BK members do NOT believe that. What they believe is that it is the disembodied entity Shiva who is ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’. The distinction is crucial – of vital importance.
Atma, maybe it's a grammar thing, but I really don't like what you say here in bold. Firstly, according to BK, Shiva is God, and is not therefore the descent of God. Secondly, Shiva is not the incarnation but the one who incarnates - the term 'incarnation' refers to the body, or the embodied form of God, so a disembodied entity by definition cannot be an incarnation but we can say that person / body X is an incarnation of God (or other disembodied entity). Maybe you mean it to read 'it is Shiva who is God and who descends into the corporeal world'. However I think what you say here below is really on the money...
Atma wrote:
The Supreme Soul Shiva and the soul of the medium Lekhraj / Brahma Baba are two different souls. To say that Lekhraj is the incarnation of Shiva is therefore wrong. They are two separate souls. Even though Shiva's 'incarnation' is not permanent, it would be better to say that Lekhraj is the vehicle or medium for 'the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’ In other words, the soul of God / Shiva incarnates in this world through / using the body of Lekhraj. Here, the focus is on the soul of Shiva as God / the one who incarnates - not on the soul of Lekhraj.
Yes, this is the subtle point that really defines the BK meaning of 'incarnation' - two souls in one body.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: |
Going back to the book review http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000108/index.html it says
Quote:
In 1936, at the age of sixty, his wife advised him to retire and to direct his life towards spiritual pursuits and it is at this time that he begins to receive his visions of Vishnu and Shiva... Lekhraj received a message that he was an avatar (i.e. incarnation) of Krishna.
Do we know precisely what the message referred to here was, and also does anyone have any murli quotes for the use of the term 'avatar'?
Display posts from previous:
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions | All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group